Slashdot Mirror
Home Defense, Geek Style?
Yo Maing writes "So my mom got lives alone, and got her car broken into last night. We have a motion sensor light in the driveway, and the car has an alarm but apparently both of these deterrents were ineffective. Crime has been rising around her neighborhood, and only action the police can take is to file a report. So I ask you, Geeks of Slashdot, what tricks do you guys have to defend yours and your loved ones homes against crimes like this? Not looking for anything that would get someone injured, but more in the area of detection and repulsion. Anyone have a holographic Yeti generator to scare away intruders? :)"
Shotguns - a good shotgun, all you need for close range theft deterrent!
The duty of care owned by landowner or person in charge to a trespasser is to refrain from willfully, maliciously or recklessly injuring them. In other words, a landowner or person in charge cannot set traps for trespassers. A trap is a hazard that is known to the landowner or person in charge, but concealed to others. If a trespasser is injured by a trap, the landowner is open to liability for the injury, even though the trespasser violated he law by trespassing. The following have been held unlawful traps for which the landowner can be held responsible: (1) setting a spring gun, (2) creating obstacles on a public roadway, (3) installing a cable gate across a private road known to be used by he public. To reduce he liability risks for #3, the road should be posted as private access. If a cable or chain is used o close a road, it should be flagged with brightly colored flags or other materials.
a quick search shows some of the BEST navy bases, they are fairly high for your average town of that size population.
Navy Times base report
i think you might want to have a look at this paintball gun then...
Take a firearm safety course.
Take a course to teach you how to handle a firearm effectively.
Know thyself. Under what circumstances will you point a loaded, deadly, weapon at someone? Under what circumstances will you shoot them? When your home is being invaded is not the time to ask such questions.
Have other family members take firearm safety / firearm effectiveness courses.
Select the weapons of choice. I happen to like shotguns: you don't miss, and you'll think twice before you riddle your home with shot. They're safer for the neighbors too. Of course, at close range, rifles offer a cleaner shot, and a greater opportunity to not kill. A handgun? I'm not that good of a shot and I don't like home intruders that close. YMMV.
Get instructions in the use of your selected weapon.
Apply for the necessary permits.
Wait.
Purchase your weapons.
Practice. I'm serious. You need to "be one" with it and comfortable with how it handles, discharges, kicks, etc.
You could've hired me.
dude that had been debunked time and time agien "This myth, stemming from a superficial "study" of firearm accidents in the Cleveland, Ohio, area, represents a comparison of 148 accidental deaths (including suicides) to the deaths of 23 intruders killed by home owners over a 16-year period. 2 Gross errors in this and similar "studies"--with even greater claimed ratios of harm to good--include: the assumption that a gun hasn't been used for protection unless an assailant dies; no distinction is made between handgun and long gun deaths; all accidental firearm fatalities were counted whether the deceased was part of the "family" or not; all accidents were counted whether they occurred in the home or not, while self-defense outside the home was excluded; almost half the self-defense uses of guns in the home were excluded on the grounds that the criminal intruder killed may not have been a total stranger to the home defender; suicides were sometimes counted and some self-defense shootings misclassified. Cleveland's experience with crime and accidents during the study period was atypical of the nation as a whole and of Cleveland since the mid-1970s. Moreover, in a later study, the same researchers noted that roughly 10% of killings by civilians are justifiable homicides. 3 The "guns in the home" myth has been repeated time and again by the media, and anti-gun academics continue to build on it. In 1993, Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide. 4 However, Dr. Kellermann selected for his study only homes where homicides had taken place--ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done--and a control group that was not representative of American households. By only looking at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. Prof. Kleck wrote that with the methodology used by Kellermann, one could prove that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted this in his study: "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, "Indeed the point is stronger than that: 'reverse causation' may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion." 5 Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi, 6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found: 81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed. 74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot. 80% of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens. 40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed. 34% of "handgun predators" were scared off or shot at by armed victims. 57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police. Professor Kleck estimates that annually 1,500-2,800 felons are legally killed in "excusable self-defense" or "justifiable" shootings by civilians, and 8,000-16,000 criminals are wounded. This compares to 300-600 justifiable homicides by police. Yet, in most instances, civilians used a firearm to threaten, apprehend, shoot at a criminal, or to fire a warning shot without injuring anyone. Based on his extensive independent survey research, Kleck estimates that each year Americans use guns for protection from criminals more than 2.5 million times annually. 7 U.S. Department of Justice victimization surve
If its legal where she is, and she can safely handle one, consider a gun. Its a last resort option(obviously) but when all else fails, even showing a gun can often deter someone. There are plenty of articles out there on home defense with a gun, so look it up to select a good weapon for her and to get her in the proper mindset to make the right call when she has to decide "shoot or don't shoot?". This is probably the most powerful option, but also the most dangerous if you screw it up(both to your health and legally), so do some serious research before going for it.
Getting a large, or at least loud, dog can be very useful. Something that will bark loudly and incessantly if someone tries to break in, and will fight to defend the property. Be careful here too- the line between a dog that will fight to defend their master and a dog that will fight just because can be very thin, make sure you go to a reputable breeder and trainer if you want a dog that does more than make noise. But as with a gun, the mere presence can be a deterrent. Think about it, you start crowbarring a door and all of the sudden you hear loud, aggressive barking on the other side- all surprise is gone and you might have an animal on the other side ready to kill you. Most criminals will bail at that moment, to seek out an easier and safer(for them) victim.
For alarms, don't use the default alarm tone. 9 times out of 10 if I hear it I ignore it, because its so damn common and most of the time its only going off because it was set too sensitive. Choose something out of the ordinary. Machine guns, explosions, screams, something that does not sound like a typical car alarm. It will startle the perp a bit more(being unexpected) and it will be more likely that a passerby will notice and glance over to see whats going on. Also, don't have it too sensitive, if the neighbors know your alarm will go off in a mild wind they won't do anything when it happens. Going to the previous selection, if you can get an alarm that will trigger a realistic recording of a dog barking and growling like its ready to kill, you can get the detterrent(though not the defensive) effect of a guard dog without the cost.
Cameras placed in spots a perp will see when casing the place or running an impulse attack can also be a deterrent. They don't have to be hooked up to have deterrent value, or even be real cameras- a decent looking mockup will still be a deterrent. Of course a real camera that is hooked up can gather evidence in case they fail to deter the perp.
Locks are an obvious one- while they won't stop a determined criminal, they will slow him down and require he make more noise on coming in. Any lock that is not working properly should be replaced immediately, and you might want to consider upgrading really old locks even if they are working right, they might not be as secure as newer models.
I highly recommend this route. To avoid having to go through training issues and increasing demand on the puppy factories out there, seriously consider looking into a rescue dog. These are dogs that typically are taken from shelters before their time runs out. The volunteers who run rescues tend to pick dogs who have exceptional traits like intelligence, affectionate, etc...
In the rescue system, they are typically potty trained, given obedience classes, speyed or neutered, screened for diseases, full immunizations, and are socialized with other dogs. I adopted a 2 year old pit bull a few years back(I went to see a germen shepherd but this dog suckered me). I couldn't have asked for a better dog. She came potty trained(mostly) with basic obedience training and she's extremely loyal. She does really good with my infant children and she scares the crap out of strangers.
I highly recommend rescue dogs after this experience.
Think for yourself, destroy your television.
If you decide to get a dog, PLEASE rescue one and do not buy a puppy. Too many great dogs are euthanized every day because nobody wants them.
Yeah...that'll bring back your family after a botched home invasion.
I live in an area where ALOT of people own firearms. That kind of thing doesn't happen here much...you'd have to be farking crazy.
Check out a reputable, local gun shop and invest in some training on how to handle it responsibly. The NRA is pretty big on that kind of thing.
Your statement about property is state specific.
Massachusetts residents are not allowed to use deadly force to protect property.
Texas residents are allowed to use deadly force to protect property. It is perfectly legal to kill someone for spraypainting graffiti on the side of your building, assuming you catch them in the act and use deadly force to make them stop (as opposed to after they stop, which is retribution, which is not legal.) If someone is running away with your garden gnome and all the way down the block, and you have to decide between letting them go or shooting them in the back with a high powered rifle so you can get your garden gnome back - you can legally do either (your choice.)
Spring guns (booby traps) are still a no-no.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
>A dog like a labrador has a more 'friendly' bark that might not worry a hardened criminal. But that rottweiler sound, that will make anyone think twice.
:)
That's not true about Labradors at all. I live in the middle of nowhere 20 miles from town. I have 2 Labs, a black and a yellow and 2 Goldens. When I go into town (which has a high gang ratio) and bring my Black Lab *everyone* clears the way. He is big and has presence and doesn't do the "I love everyone to death!" attitude my Goldens do. I once was lost at night somewhere and had the same black Lab with me and locked him in the car while I ate dinner at the Denneys. When I came back and opened the door I couldn't see him anywhere. Then I looked down and saw he was coiled up front under the steering wheel just daring anyone to try and get in the car. I also have never had anyone dare enter the yard when he is around and when I lived in town in a little duplex even my landlady didn't dare come through till I locked him up. Also, he has the meanest bark I have ever heard, along with flashing white teeth. My yellow Lab may look less scarey but he A: Has a big bark and B: He has has a higher intelligence about people than most Rottweilers. Most Rotts think everyone is the Bad Guy. Not This dog. When I had a new washer delivered to my house and was home he never even barked, just watched. Everytime somebody comes around with no business being here he acts like he is going to eat them.
The Goldens bark but then try and "love" you
BTW, speaking as a dog trainer and having worked in kennels for many years the very BEST guard dog in the world is a Chesapeak Bay Retriever. They are gentle and loyal with the elderly and children but make the best, most intelligent guard dogs there is. A Chessie is NOT afraid to knock a perp over and stand on them snarling in there face and only bite if necessarly till help arrives without any training in protection work.
Also, they love to "be tough" without actually being mean. A friend who had one let his loose in his yard when some car pulled up in his driveway at 1 AM and the two people started necking. His dog Eric, quietly approached the car, slipped into the open window and then roared like a bear, scaring the crap out of the couple who drove off in a hurry.
Fuzdout
..My sig ran away. Has anyone seen my sig?
A couple of months ago I had a neighbor break into my house and thought I wouldn't notice. As soon as I got home I did, and on consulting a camera in my living room I found pictures of her where she shouldn't have been.
Video cameras are great, but require lots of tape and can wear out, even digital ones require large amounts of disk space.
I was very happy that I was using a MemoCam that I had picked up in a thrift store back in December. I was very eager to use it as I had a pair of DVD's disappear the month before, and after many months of sitting idle it found my burglar (at least in this one case).
As for the camera, it's a small B&W cam that uses IR to detect motion, when detected it starts snapping pictures to a MMC card. It even supports scheduling so I have it automatically enable motion detection soon after I leave for work and disable it again just before I get home.
With such a device, there is always the risk that it could be stolen, along with the pictures it contains. To help prevent such an occurrence I have since improved my camera arrangement in my home... all I will say is that I now have more than one camera and not even a burglar setting fire to the place could prevent me from having good, usable pictures of the event.
For those who didn't go to the link above, my burglar initially denied everything until she was confronted with the pictures by the police. She's now facing charges of 2nd degree burglary and petty theft, charges that carry maximum jail terms of 10 years in the state pen and 30 days in the county jail respectively.
We are now at 3 months to the day since the break in and still the wheels of justice are turning slow... but at least they are turning, all because I am paranoid enough to have a camera in my home.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
In addition, he was facing armed robbers.
You could've hired me.
No, I abhor government help, and find private charity in the U.S. extremely generous to those who have just had a bad run of bad luck.
Private charity only goes so far. It doesn't nearly cover the needs out there. And not everyone who's poor is just lazy. I know plently of hard-working people who are sinking deeper and deeper into debt.
For all the "social programs" I've seen in places like Canada, they;re all ineffective hollow promise, with expensive tax burdens, that fatten some asshole politicians.
Clearly the current tax system is corrupt. But the pork-barreling in social programs is nothing compared to the Pentagon/"Defense"/"Homeland Security" sector.
I think a quote from Eisenhower is appropriate:
From his Farewell Speech, 1961
Doesn't *matter* if he'd been robbed, he still killed somebody. He set out intending to shoot and kill a person, which in pretty much *any* country is murder.
No.
In some US states, anyone who breaks into your domicile (that includes house or vehicle) can be shot, even if no other crime has been committed.
IOW, just the mere fact that a stranger is in the house w/o permission from the owner is justification for shoot-to-kill.
Anti-gun activists in Louisiana brayed that the streets would run red with blood if such a law were passed, and the law was passed, and, of course, blood hasn't run down the streets...
Brady types tried to spread the same fear about a concealed-carry weapon law, and the same lack of blood in the street occured.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Don't be a Victim / Personal and Home Safety - Sacramento Sheriff's Departmenth ome_safety
http://sacsheriff.com/crime_prevention/index.cfm#
Where the heck did you get those stats?
From the FBI's own website back in, I believe, 1996. They referenced a report which at the time was available for download; it made a splash in the popular press, especially in the outrage expressed by the anti-gun fanatics.
However, if you can't find the particular report in question (it's no longer on the FBI website, but last time I looked for it it wasn't too difficult to track down), similar surveys (some more scientific than others) have confirmed these figures - and in fact cite defensive gun use as high as 2.5 million cases a year (well beyond the FBI's "200,000-800,000"). These studies have been conducted by the Field Institute in California; the State of Ohio, in Ohio; Peter Hart Research Associates for the entire Unites States; and the Cambridge Reports for the entire United States. IIRC there are around 15 confirming studies but I don't have them all at hand. I'm sure you'll be able to find at least one or two of these mentioned on the internet, and perhaps even be able to find an electronic copy of the paper study. I won't waste my time trying to find links; you should be able to do so yourself with the information I've provided to you (assuming you're actually interested in educating yourself).
And why don't you look at the stats that show those with a gun in their hand are more likely to be shot?
Now your turn. I've done a google search and can find no credible study backing up your claim. The only thing I found close to this was that certain inner-city black gang members were more likely to be shot if they were armed than when they were not, most likely because *they were more likely to engage in an armed conflict*. This had nothing whatsoever to do with criminal activity and victim defense.
Escalating a conflict with someone that is high on adrenaline (if not something illegal, or jonesing) is NOT a smart move.
According to a collection of studies done in various large cities (New York, Philadelphia and Los Angeles, to name just three) and released despite the strenuous objects of various police departments, you are much more likely to suffer minor injuries if you resist victimization by a criminal. However, you are also much more likey to SURVIVE victimization by a criminal, *especially if you are a woman*. So the passive acquiescence taught by many police departments is MORE likely to get you killed than active resistance.
This phenomenon is well-known among psychologists. Criminals look for prey to victimize; if the victim fights back and refuses to accept the role as prey, this changes the criminal's perspective of his intended victim from 'prey' to 'potentially dangerous predator'. If the criminal cannot subdue the victim in a short period of time he's likely to disengage and look for easier targets, where personal risk (real or perceived) is lower. Most criminals are cowards, remember.
A willing victim fits right into the role and invites abuse. So while it's indeed more likely that you won't be injured, it's also more likely that your acquiescene will encourage the criminal to become so violent that he'll end up killing you. Hence the statistic that if you fight back you're more likely to sustain minor injuries (cuts, bruises) but are also more likely to SURVIVE the encounter.
In any event, it's better to be armed than not. There's a reason why the majority of handgun owners in the United States now carry their firearms concealed *even though they don't have a license to do so*. There's a reason the largest and fast-growing gun purchasing demographic is women under the age of 35. It isn't baseless fear or, as the antigun lobby would have us believe, because we all crave to do murder in our hearts. It's because guns are an effective deterrant to victimization by criminals.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Sorry, accidentally posted anonymously.
Asnwer this then: 1/5th the gun deaths in Canada compared to the US.
One of many social factors: The US war on drugs. Many homicides are drug related, directly or indirectly.
The assault rate per 100,000 is higher in Canada.
Sexual Assault, 32.8 per 100k US to 77.5 Canada
Robbery higher in US, 144.9 to 88.0 but there is no mention if this includes use of a gun
Aggravated assault, Canada is higher with 761 to 323.
These are numbers for 2000...
Only problem aligning the two is definitions... I found that Aggravated Assualt in Canada is 3 categories but usually all clumped together.
What the numbers usually imply that if the criminal knows your not supposed to be armed you are an easier mark. This was proven a few times in Washington DC by comparing the times of day when certain crimes occured and how ofter. DC has very strict gun control laws...
Laws don't mean anything to most criminals. Access to guns is very easy and the better deterrent is to make yourself unattractive to would be assailants.
This can include..
1. Stay in very visible areas.
2. Living in a well lit area
3. House on the main street of a neighborhood
4. Front side apartments
5. Living where gun ownership is permitted (esp carry/concealed)
6. Having nosy neighbors
7. Keeping doors and windows locked and closed on ground levels.
8. Having a well lit backyard. (fences can work against you)
9. Dogs are nice.
10. Home security systems and signs to help "advertise it" - (will deter some)
There are many things to deter crime, don't for a minute think laws have much to do with it.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Killing someone because of trespassing? Someone that's almost surely unarmed!? That's the last solution I would've chosen, if at all.
"Because of tresspassing". Not even "because he tresspassed". Already your bending the language to avoid putting the responsibility where it belongs - on the person who chose to "tresspass", almost certainly as the first step of committing a more serious crime - like car theft, vandalism, rape, burglary, etc.
But you DON'T shoot somebody who's just tresspassing. You warn them off (or in some jusisdictions, if you have evidence of a lot more than tresspass, demand they stay put with their hands where you can see them until the police arrive to sort it all out.)
If you'd actually TAKEN the course recommended by the original poster, you'd know that.
As for "unarmed":
If you point a gun at somebody and demand that he leave, and he comes at you instead, either he's armed or plumb crazy and thinks he's strong enough to take you DESPITE the gun. Either way a "reasonable and prudent person" would believe that he's about to take "serious bodily harm" unless he does something.
THAT's the legal standard for firing.
But not for KILLING. You fire to STOP THE ATTACK. Maybe one in four he dies. His tough luck.
If you're a 120-pound skinny (or 250-pound fat) nerd and he's a 280-pound muscle-bound felon who spent two years pumping iron in stir until they let him out last week, he doesn't NEED a weapon to take you. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have one. Him coming at you after you point a gun at him and tell him to leave is a VERY strong hint.
Fortunately, most crooks are smart enough to realize that if you've got the gun pointed at them it's time to leave now. So you almost NEVER have to shoot.
But (like seatbelts, fire extinguishers, and armies) you have to be READY and WILLING to use them when they're needed or there's no point in having them in the first place. And some human predators are good enough at reading your resolve that they'll know if you're NOT willing to shoot - so you have to be willing.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Under no circumstances get a gun. It is a stupid precaution that only serves to increase your risk substantially ... your more likely to get shot with your own weapon (or get sued by someone you shoot) than you are to successfully defend your home.
Sorry, buddy, but the Kellerman study has been debunked and these days is only promoted by gun control organizations--not even Kellerman himself still stands behind it.
Killing someone is a tough thing
I do agree, however, that if you ever point a firearm at somebody you'd best be prepared to use it.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
My high school physics teacher had problems every Halloween with kids blowing up his mailbox with fireworks. He finally took a laser home from school, set up some mirrors and ringed his mailbox with laser tripwires. This was hooked up to a freakin' loud alarm. You get the picture.
If you wanted to take it a step further, you could set up strobe lamps and a camera like the intersection ticket boxes. Multiple view angles would help in case the person has their back to the camera. That way, when the police came by you could hand them glossies and a DV tape of the guy.
German shepards. I have a diabetic cousin that has one. This dog has pawed at her face to keep her awake when she has started to go into diabetic comas. It even frightened off a prowler once.
Also, it dilligently watches their baby, and even gently plays with it.
German Shepards are extremely intimidating, yet intelligent and friendly dogs. Excellent with children. They are not mindless attack dogs like pit bulls. Shepards always know who to attack and when.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
Okay okay okay, too many comments about guns.
. html
Guns are not a reasonable solution for Yo Maing's problem. He/she specifically says "not looking for something that would get someone injured." Guns injure people. Besides, buying a gun and getting proper training just is not an interesting solution to the problem.
If you really want to do a security system on the cheap look into fish alarms like http://www.outdoorsweekly.com/ultrashackfishalarm
If you have one of those, you can set up a tripwire fence of barely visible fishing line around a piece of property so that when somebody or something trips it, a loud alarm goes off with flashing lights. You'll want to go with a non-nylon fishing line though because nylon stretches too much. My dad has used this system while camping in Alaska to ward off grizzlys and he's still alive too!
If $20 is still too much, you can make your own trip-wire circuit: http://www.aaroncake.net/circuits/alarm1.htm
++ Eschew Obfuscation ++
It's usually illegal to have a static firearm with a trap mechanism.
They used to have things like this all the time in Europe and North America for both setting traps for deer, boar, bears and to keep poachers away, they became illegal a while back I think.
So what you are talking about is always pretty much illegal, with the guns at least.
Now she can buy a AK-47 (the weapon of choice for home-defense professionals in some of the worst places in the world, like Iraq and Afghanistan) with as many combat-style accessories as she wants
Fully automatic weapons are stiff covered by the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act. Unless you have serious money and can afford one of the relatively few legal machine guns out there, they're basically illegal. So what Sarah Brady calls an "AK-47" and what our arab friends like to use are not in the least bit comparable.
Secondly--and I think you already know this, based on your bayonet remark--the ban was largely cosmetic. Rifles functionally identical, but cosmetically different than those banned in 1994 have been manufactured since the ban went into effect--which, to me, proves the law was entirely useless. What's even more absurd is that because of the ban, demand for these guns has gone through the roof--more "assault weapons" were bought from 1994-2004 then were bought from 1974-1994. I don't know what the Bradys were trying to achieve, but I doubt that was it.
Just tell her to buy a Bushmaster
Bushmaster doesn't manufacture AK-47s, not even the semi-automatic version.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
The problem is mostly a legal one, as anyone who's taken a concealed handgun course will tell you. The laws vary by state, but many are like Texas, where I'm at and can reasoanbly describe.
One factor is threat escalation. When one party initiates the use force, then the other party is justified in using force as a defense. When the first party escalates to deadly force, then the other party is justified in using deadly force in defense. Whoever initiates each escalation is the agressor who will likely be criminally convicted, whoever defends without escalating further up the chain of "nothing->force->deadly force" than the other party has already done is in the clear on defensive grounds. Where this all ties back in to the point is that while drawing a weapon and pointing it at someone only constitutes "force" (and is therefore legally no different than shouting, pushing, or grabbing their arm), firing the weapon, even into the ground or air as a warning shot, constitutes deadly force.
In Texas in particular, property rights are strong, and you can initiate deadly force in response to certain property crimes under certain condititions justifiably, even though the person committing the property crimes isn't neccesarily using deadly force against you. It's complicated, but a good rule of thumb for this stuff is that if it's dark, the guy is either inside your house and not clearly visible (lights are out), or it's dark and the guy is in your lawn showing signs of attempted arson (gas can in hand), you can shoot.
But just as one should never fire a warning shot (as it is a meaningless threat escalation and puts you on the wrong side of certain legal issues), one should also never "shoot to kill", or at least never phrase it that way to the cops who show up afterwards or the grand jury you'll be facing even in a defensive case. The important thing is that you were "shooting to stop" (either stop the property crime under the right circumstances, shooting to stop the threat on your life or that of others, shooting to stop "deadly force" actions against you or others, or any combination of the above). That also means that once the person does "stop" (dead, severely disabled and immobilized, running away, whatever), you are obligated to stop shooting, or once again you're on the wrong side of the law. Therefore a practical consideration to keep in your head (But enver say out loud) is that when you do make that shot to "stop", it better be deadly - because chances are after the initial hit the guy *will* stop one way or the other, and if he stays alive, he's likely to sue in civil court for his enduring medical problems if you winged him.
So, in summary, make sure you know your state's laws about when the use deadly force is authorized (A concealed handgun course in states that offer it is a great source of information and training) - and shoot to kill, but don't ever admit to shooting to kill, only shooting to stop - and do stop shooting when they stop aggressing. I would personally recommend a double-tap to the chest for your opening and closing volley.
11*43+456^2
You are close, but I must again say that you are incorrect on this point. Trust me, if someone stole your ipod while you were down in the great state of Texas and to exact your revenge you hunted the thief down and killed him, you would indeed be rung up on 1st degree murder charges.
I think this may be my fault for not being entirely specific about the Texas statute, and for that I apologize. Let me try to be more explicit.....
The statute we're both talking about is sec. 9.42 of Title 2 of the Texas Code. It does in fact say that you can kill a person to defend property alone, however, if you read to the end of the statute [specifically 9.42(3)(b)], reprinted here:
(b)the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
You will find that the use of deadly force to protected property is only allowed in those instances in which the protection of said property with deadly force is the only means available to prevent death or serious bodily injury to yourself or another. This is an extremely steep burden and although Texas does have that old wild west reputation, people are most certainly not allowed to kill simply for the fact that their property has been damaged or stolen.
Again I apologize for not being specific about this earlier, and it's possible that we were both right. I hope I cleared this up somewhat.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
For openers, I have paid more in taxes in the last two years than I ever recieved in benefits or pay serving my country. I would say that I have paid back Uncle Same probably 4 times over.
As far as the budget is concerned, according to Budget Explorer, the US National Budget for 2005 is expected to pay out 41% of all funds to Medicare, Medicaid, and the Social Security Administration alone. Only 18% is earmarked for National Defense and military pensions.
Tell me we aren't already a welfare state. Perhaps you should take a peak at the budget yourself sometime.
nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
which was the first item on the list. Any such course will cover safe and appropriate methods of storage, if they're even halfway decent.You apparently missed
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
BTW, speaking as a dog trainer and having worked in kennels for many years the very BEST guard dog in the world is a Chesapeak Bay Retriever. They are gentle and loyal with the elderly and children but make the best, most intelligent guard dogs there is. A Chessie is NOT afraid to knock a perp over and stand on them snarling in there face and only bite if necessarly till help arrives without any training in protection work.
.sig). They can be crazy
Also, they love to "be tough" without actually being mean.
Couldn't agree with you more (see my
and they can be high energy but they can also be chill and sweet.
The only problem with Chessies is that they are not suited to everybody. As I'm sure you know, they can also be food-protective and their wariness of strangers can lead to problems. A dog that attacks burglars is good but I've also had mine charge at neighbors who are walking down the sidewalk. You have to assert your dominance if you're going to own a chessie.
Most people (esp. many anti-gun people) don't realize that the police have no legal requirement to come to your aid (at least in the US; probably elsewhere too).
Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived.
When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."
The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).]
Labs have a great combination of intelligence, aggressiveness, protectiveness, size, and gentleness. They look tough and have a big bark but they generally don't fly off the handle. An intruder will quickly get barreled over by a Lab but if the master is around and he okays the person then the Lab will generally chill out.
Labs are awesome with kids and are amazing at social interaction with people. My black Lab pretty much knows EXACTLY what is going on. If I'm going for a swim in the pool she is at the door before I leave my room. If I'm going to take a walk she is already by my side WITH the leash in her mouth. If I want her out of my way I just ask her to back up and she backs up, if I say move she moves out of the way.
The worst thing is the first three years. Up until age 2 or 3 they can be unholy terrors. They are such mouthy, energetic dogs that they are constantly carrying your shoes, socks, paper, etc around the house and chewing on them. Be prepared to run them to death every day to try to tire them out. A swimming pool is perfect for this, get 2 toys, throw one in and send in the dog, when it gets back wave the second toy and throw it, then you can pick up the first one. Repeat until you have a very tired dog.
Chesapeake Bay Retrievers are a bit more wild and energetic than Labradors but they are also wonderful. Chessies are just as friendly as Labs but they are even WORSE when it comes to taking a break. From what I've experienced most Chessies will work or play until they literally pass out from exhaustion. They are a little dopey but not dumb, it's just that their energy is a bit too much for them to stop to think about what they are doing! They are EXTREMELY trainable and are very protective of children.
You can hardly go wrong with either a Labrador or a Chesapeake Bay Retriever but be prepared to take a lot of walks and swims if you get one!
Sapere aude!
It seems to me that YOU have not studied history. Here are the facts:
"A commonly heard argument against gun control is that the National Socialists of Germany (the Nazis) used it in their ascent to and maintenance of power. A corollary argument is sometimes made that had the Jews (and presumably the other targeted groups) been armed, they could have fought off Nazi tyranny. This tract seeks to counter these misassumptions about Nazi gun control.
Gun control, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was introduced to Germany in 1928 under the Weimar regime (there was no Right to Arms in the Constitution of 1919) in large part to disarm the nascent private armies, e.g. the Nazi SA (aka "the brownshirts"). The Weimar government was attempting to bring some stability to German society and politics (a classic "law and order" position). Violent extremist movements (of both the Left and Right) were actively attacking the young, and very fragile, democratic state. A government that cannot maintain some degree of public order cannot sustain its legitimacy. Nor was the German citizenry well grounded in Constitutional, republican government (as was evidenced in their choices at the ballot box). Gun control was not initiated at the behest or on behalf of the Nazis - it was in fact designed to keep them, or others of the same ilk, from executing a revolution against the lawful government. In the strictest sense, the law succeeded - the Nazis did not stage an armed coup. "
Lots more there, go read it.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
It's common for Europeans to believe that they're enlightened enough not to need guns. Unfortunately, they're living in a dream.
That is what YOU say. Now consider the following statistics, which I have taken from this report and which are for the year 1991: (I cut the list by some countries in the midfield)
And now tell me again that having a gun in your flat is a good prevention. I guess I need to say that I am from Switzerland and have an automatic gun (SIG Stgw 90) at home (from the army), as every male citizen has, but you can`t get bullets for it (the ones you have are in a sealed package).
As for the question for security: I lock the door, that`s it, but I guess in the US that is unfortunately not enough.
this sig is useless
Out of sight out of mind: He closed in his carport so you couldn't see his car
Inconvenience potential burglars: a pet fence around the back yard (with the gate locked), storm windows and storm doors extra locks on widows and doors.
A thorny defense: All the windows had holly bushes growing under and around them.
looking like you have nothing to steal: The house wasn't the best in the neighborhood or the worst and all the improvements were either invisible to the casual observer or common place.
In summary the house was the least attractive target on the whole block with many inconveniences visible from the street, where presumably the potential burglars case the property.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Pit bulls are *potentially* much more dangerous, because of their breed, than are other types of dogs, and here's the reason. Canids have an instinct, that when their opponent surrenders, they stop attacking. But Pit bulls have had this instinct bred out of them. Pits will not surrender, and will not stop attacking. But pits are usually really friendly to people - excessively so, so much that they make poor guard dogs. They were bred to fight other dogs. But f'ed-up types can train them to regard people as their target, too. These dogs are eager to please their owners, so if that's what he wants... Then you have something really, really, really dangerous. Because when they attack they don't stop until something is dead. So a pit bull makes a terrible choice for a guard dog. It's not what they were bred for. German Shepards, on the other hand, have excellent guard instincts. You can stop a well-trained German from attacking with a command. Pits don't listen to that command: they are constitutionally incapable of it, bred for centuries for their much-admired refusal to give up fighting. A half-dead Pit will attempt to keep fighting. Still a pit doesn't normally attack people, only other dogs, unless it has been mistrained. Of course you can mistrain a German Shepard too. But to suggest there is no inherent difference in the breed characteristics is irresponsible.
Here's my Google-corroboration:
: www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.a sp%3FID%3D2110+%22Joseph+Derek+Joseph+West%22&hl=e n
A Harris County grand jury will review this morning's fatal shooting of a man who allegedly tried to break into a town house in west Houston.
Joseph Derek Joseph West, 21, was shot in the chest about 2:50 a.m. by a home owner in the 14600 block of Perthshire, police said. West, who lived in the 19300 block of Park Row, later died at Ben Taub General Hospital.
The 51-year-old homeowner, who has not been identified because no charges have been filed, stepped outside to investigate after hearing suspicious noises. Investigators later said the noises were of West trying to enter other town homes.
West allegedly approached the man with his fists raised. Fearing for his safety, the home owner fired once, striking West in the chest, police said.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:bKsNa5tmZygJ
sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.